Oviedo states that he supplemented the friar's written account with particulars learned orally in Santo Domingo from Captain Orellana and the gentlemen who came with him.

E089 (strong) quotes Oviedo, via Medina, stating he added particulars learned from Orellana and his companions in Santo Domingo to what the friar wrote; Oviedo is quoted at second hand and his volume is blocked in this ledger.

AMZ-E089 (strong, supports) quotes Oviedo through Medina: beyond the friar's eyewitness text, he learned particulars in Santo Domingo from Orellana and other gentlemen who came with him. Confidence is moderate because Oviedo is quoted at second hand; the Oviedo volume itself is blocked in this ledger.

Medina's (1894) critical edition directly quotes Oviedo's Historia general confirming that he augmented the friar's written text with oral details obtained in Santo Domingo from Captain Orellana and other expedition members. The historical fact of Oviedo's methodological disclosure is verified. Strongest opposing consideration: The quotation is verified through Medina's nineteenth-century introduction rather than direct inspection of the original Oviedo manuscript.

AMZ-E089 quotes Oviedo's own statement via Medina with the exact locator. The strongest opposing consideration: the Medina 1894 text has been read by only one reader (the verifier could not retrieve it), so this rests on single-reader verification of a second-hand quotation.

AMZ-E089 quotes Medina's rendering of Oviedo saying that he learned additional particulars orally in Santo Domingo from Orellana and other members of the expedition. That directly supports both the supplementation and the named informants. The strongest opposing consideration is that Oviedo is available here only through Medina, so the underlying passage was not independently read from the Oviedo volume.

Medina quotes Oviedo that he added particulars learned in Santo Domingo from Orellana and accompanying gentlemen beyond the friar’s written eyewitness text (AMZ-E089). The opposing consideration is that Oviedo is reached only through Medina’s introduction, not the blocked Oviedo volume, so transmission detail remains one step removed.

AMZ-E089 quotes Medina quoting Oviedo's own statement that he supplemented the friar's text with particulars learned in Santo Domingo from Orellana and his companions. The quoted Spanish is specific and the inference drawn (that Oviedo's branch is not independent of Orellana) follows directly. The weakening consideration is one the ledger states itself: Oviedo is reached through Medina, the Oviedo volume is not in the ledger, and the Medina text was read by a drafter but never confirmed by a second reader, so no quotation from this source has been double-checked.

Medina's (1894) introduction explicitly cites Oviedo stating that he supplemented the Dominican friar's written relación with oral accounts directly provided in Santo Domingo by Captain Orellana and his companions. The strongest opposing consideration is that we rely on Medina's transcription and editorial framing rather than direct collation against Oviedo's original manuscript folio in the ledger.

AMZ-E089 quotes Oviedo's own statement via Medina that he learned particulars from Orellana and his gentlemen in Santo Domingo, which is directly what the claim asserts. It is second-hand (Oviedo via Medina), the Oviedo volume itself is blocked in the ledger, and no second reader has checked the Medina OCR, so confidence is capped.

AMZ-E089 directly quotes Oviedo, through Medina, saying that he added particulars learned in Santo Domingo from Orellana and other returning gentlemen. The strongest opposing consideration is the indirect transmission through Medina because the Oviedo volume was not independently read in this ledger. The wording nevertheless establishes the claim as a report of what Oviedo states.

Medina’s quotation of Oviedo (E089) explicitly records supplementation from Orellana and companions in Santo Domingo. Strongest opposing consideration is that the Oviedo volume itself remains unread in the ledger, so the report is second-hand, yet the statement is unambiguous.

E089 quotes Oviedo through Medina's introduction (p. xl). Oviedo says that beyond the friar's eyewitness text he learned particulars in Santo Domingo 'del mesmo capitán Francisco de Orellana é de otros caballeros'. The quotation is specific and located, and it is consistent with general background on how Oviedo compiled his Historia (a prior, disclosed). The strongest opposing consideration is verification status. SRC-CARVAJAL-1542 is labelled unverified because only the drafter read the Medina OCR and the second reader could not retrieve it, and Oviedo is reached second-hand through Medina. The claim matters because it makes the Oviedo branch non-independent of Orellana, which limits what the divergence in AMZ-C002 can show.

AMZ-E089 quotes Oviedo, via Medina's 1894 introduction, saying he added particulars learned in Santo Domingo from Orellana and his companions. The quotation is specific. But Oviedo's own volume is not read here, and quotations from the Medina edition have not been confirmed by a second reader.